Probably won't be a whole lot of coverage on this one.
http://bearingarms.com/restaurant-cook-shoots-armed-robber-protecting-20-lives-detroit/
http://bearingarms.com/restaurant-cook-shoots-armed-robber-protecting-20-lives-detroit/
Guns save lives
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
Wrong again my right wing wacko friend......
Plenty of coverage to be found ......
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/detroit-coney-island-employee-shoots-kills-armed-robber/33697360
http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/detroit/cook-shoots-and-kills-robber-at-detroit-restaurant
Wrong again my right wing wacko friend......
Plenty of coverage to be found ......
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/detroit-coney-island-employee-shoots-kills-armed-robber/33697360
http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/detroit/cook-shoots-and-kills-robber-at-detroit-restaurant
Coverage such as national coverage...not so much.
Yeah, there's a little on the local channels because any shooting is better than no shooting at all, even if they do have to show that guns are more of a solution than a problem. It's the national coverage you won't see at all. Now if the robber had managed to shoot even one customer they could have gone national with the evils of guns.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Aww c'mon now ... you're just spoiling all the logically fallacious fun ... lol ...
The problem is (other than it happens sooooo often that a Web site is devoted to keeping a record of them, the total of which you can count on bare feet and one hand), that Web site assumes the worst would have happened in every case, yet there is simply no way to predict what didn't happen, as if it would have. The fact is, no mass shooting has ever been stopped by a good guy with a gun (or a background check, for that matter). The bad guy always gets off at least one shot first. Plus, there's a really, really lot of carry permits out there, and thus far they have been virtually impotent at stopping mass shootings when you compare the number of mass shootings. Every time someone with a gun shoots a bad guy with a gun, the gun zealots point to it as proof that guns save lives in those situations, when in reality it doesn't prove that at all. It's wishful thinking wrapped up in a religious belief that no amount of reality will alter.
Can it be proven every time? Certainly not. Can it be discounted every time? Also certainly not. Anyone who believes there would not have been more killings by the bad guy in some of the cases is a PRO kind of brainwashed anti-gun person. And yes, the number of incidences are fairly low because the shooters avoid places where armed resistance may be met. Once in a while they get surprised and we hear about it.
No, it couldn't be proven every time. It couldn't be proven any of the time, actually. The future of what might happen as a possibility or even a probability remains just that, and not an inevitability. I would also agree that anyone who believes there would not have been more shootings in some of those cases is delusional, just like those who absolutely believe there would have been more shootings in all of those cases is a special kind of stupid. Saying that it doesn't happen very often is due to the fact that shooters avoid places where guns might be certainly sounds good, but there's really no empirical evidence to back that up other than more wishful thinking and the scant anecdotes. All it takes is one guy shooting up a police station, or one guy trying to get into or is already inside a military base to blow that theory out of the water. For every incident you can point to where the shooter allegedly chose it because guns were unlikely, there are several others that can be pointed to where the shooter clearly did not.
My point is, there's no need to twist or misrepresent the truth, even to gun control wackos, to convince people that "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed." It's really pretty simple, and the farther the argument strays from that one simple fact, the easier it is for competing logical fallacies to win the argument. The more one side says "guns save lives" the other side will say "gun control prevents mass shootings" and pretty soon it's a competition to see who is right, and the winner gets the spoils. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. End of discussion.
My point is, there's no need to twist or misrepresent the truth, even to gun control wackos, to convince people that "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed." It's really pretty simple, and the farther the argument strays from that one simple fact, the easier it is for competing logical fallacies to win the argument. The more one side says "guns save lives" the other side will say "gun control prevents mass shootings" and pretty soon it's a competition to see who is right, and the winner gets the spoils. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. End of discussion.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms is the final check and balance in our constitution.
Nope. Can't go by that. Seen how Obamacare went through the court today. It isn't what something actually says, it is how they want to interpret it.
Quite true, however in this issue, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled many times in many ways that personal ownership of arms shall not be infringed.
I don't much like the fact that they've ruled the manner in which someone can bear arms (concealed or not) can be regulated (and thus infringed) nor the fact that you need permission (a permit) to exercise a right, but at least there is a compelling state interest in both of those and they only minimally infringe on the right, so I can live with that.
The problem comes with creep, which happens whenever those defending the right lose the focus and defend against the logical fallacies.
I agree with what you are saying or even maybe a year ago. With a change in the makeup of the court, now I'm not so sure.
A LOT of Change is occurring.